Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3088999" data-attributes="member: 141">Well, mechanically I was analyzing shambler in terms of the summon monster suite; technically in terms of summon monster VIII, but that's because it replicates summon monster VI, but yielding more monsters.  I didn't peg shambler as a 9th level spell that could be a baseline to extrapolate from; in fact, I still think it is an epic spell that somehow got assigned to 9th level.  However, an epic summons should be comparable to shambler, in the same way that [energy] should be comparable to meteor swarm.  When players consider an epic spell that fits a particular role, they are going to look at what is already available at non-epic levels.The creation/summoning distinction basically amounts to whether protection from evil hedges the creature out.  You can call it what you like, but you are still pulling monstrous allies out of thin air to fight your enemies.Are we going to standardize the ranges of spells?  All the summon monster spells are close, but shambler is medium.  If we want the spells to be homogenous, it's desirable that their parameters agree; in the case of range I think that might as well be long.  Unless there's some reason why it would be inappropriate for a particular seed.  In practice this would result in shorter range mitigating factors being used all the time, which might not be desirable.Hmmm.  If 20-ft.-radius ==> individual is -6 SP, and the damage is typeless, then we are getting very close to [destroy].  Just have to figure out how to handle the "save for half" vs "save for 5d6" business.  And then [slay] could be worked in too, if Death is made its own type.I don't know if I'm arguing for, or against this idea.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />[edit] I discovered a math error in post 216; I've edited the change, and made a consequent change in post 220.  Basically I think that divine damage is a +6; this tends to support the view that true typeless damage is +8.</blockquote>

Verification